Islam a religion of peace?

Many Western leaders in recent times, most notably David Cameron and Barrack Obama, have continued to label Islam a ‘religion of peace’. This is particularly distressing, considering that Great Britain and the United States have always been, and supposedly continue to be, the two major leaders of the ‘free world’, in their steadfast support for democracy and freedom. To my mind, the implications of the definition of Islam as a ‘peaceful’ religion are twofold.

There are two possibilities, as to what this statement reveals about Obama and Cameron, and scores of other Western leaders. Firstly, it may represent that these individuals are genuinely oblivious to the threat that Islam brings to our society. Their intelligence may in fact be so low, that they are unable to connect the dots, to see the facts, and recognize the truth.

However, considering the levels of education of these two men, I consider this to be highly unlikely. No, these men are deliberately making statements which contradict even their own version of the truth. It is not difficult to see their motivations. The key idea in stating Islam is a religion of peace, is an attempt to further ‘reach out’ to the Muslim community, and prevent further alientation. In principle, I would oppose any blatant action which causes Islamic people to become further marginalized from society, for no justifiable purpose. However, achieving community cohesion should not be mutually exclusive with simple truth telling. The implications for these statements and the framing of the Islamic issue, are dangerous and misleading. It is a common tactic for aggressors, in any situation, to portray themselves as victims. Any individual with any substantial knowledge of Islamic terrorism, can understand that the issue is complex, and explaining it purely as a kneejerk reaction toward perceived American expansion, would be to enormously oversimplify the problem. Clearly, elements of Islamic theology, and its doctrine, have had a role to play in the rise of Islamic State, and the countless other Islamic conflicts around the world.

Consequently, Obama and Cameron in their appeasement policy, have enacted some degree of betrayal to the free world. Their reactions toward such a grave and aggressive enemy, draw clear parallels with the British pre-WW2 leader Neville Chamberlain, such are their cowardice and gutlessness. To defeat an enemy, we must aim, identify and be honest with its aspects. To suggest that all Muslims are terrorist supporting, or barbaric in nature, would be a preposterous notion. Nonetheless, this fact, combined with misleading ideas on how to win the support of Muslim people, should not prevent Obama, Cameron and others from being honest about the Islamist threat our world faces.

‘To suggest that all Muslims are terrorist supporting, or barbaric in nature, would be a preposterous notion.’ —

They ALL believe in the Queeran and the Queeran teaches exactly what ISIS/ISIL/IS and all the other sub-terror organizations under ISIS, is doing. Their goal is world domination either by the sword now or by the sword later when they enough people in one area to make sure no one can stand against them. Same goal different process.

To say other wise is like telling me, as a person of the Baptist faith, that the one and only way to handle missions is like the Southern Baptist organization does and not how the Independant Baptist handle missions, which is a totally different. The goal is the same — bringing souls to the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Same goal different process.

Yeah mate, sure Islamic State is inspired by Islamic teachings. Pure Islamic teaching comprises of some not very nice stuff. However, not all Muslims carry out these extreme aspects, they exercise their judgement as moral being, and do not believe in what Islamic State. However, these peaceful Muslims are not existence because of Islam, rather they are exist in spite of Islam